Czech lower courts' decisions
C-437/05 Vorel
Referring court: District Court in Český Krumlov (1st instance, civil)
Area of law: employment, social policy
ECJ formation: 3 judges, JR Schintgen
AG’s opinion: no
Mr Vorel was employed as a doctor by the Hospital in Český Krumlov on the basis of a permanent contract. During the period from 1 May to 31 October 2004, the Hospital required him to perform on-call duty at his workplace. It paid him a remuneration corresponding to that specifically provided for by the national legislation on on-call duty.
Mr Vorel challenged the basis on which that remuneration was calculated before the District Court. In particular, he claimed that he should be remunerated for the on-call duty as if it was a normal performance of work. Thus, he claimed the supplement to his salary of CZK 29.151,- plus interest, representing the difference between the “traditional” and “lowered” renumerations. Mr Vorel referred to the Case C‑151/02 Jaeger in which the ECJ concluded that all of the period of on-call duty performed by a doctor under a system where he is expected to be physically present in the hospital constitutes working time within the meaning of Directives 93/104 and 2003/88, even though the party concerned is authorised to rest at his workplace during the period that his services are not called upon.
As a result, the District Court decided to ask the ECJ whether from the point of view of conformity with Directive 93/104 and the judgment Jaeger, is a doctor’s waiting for work when on call at his place of work in the hospital to be regarded as the performance of work.
The Court of Justice decided the case by means of a reasoned order under Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, holding that the answer to the question referred could be clearly deduced from the existing case-law. Referring in particular to Case C‑10/04 Dellas and Others [2005], the Court held that, where a doctor is on call at his place of work, the time spent waiting for the actual work to be carried out must be treated as working time and, where appropriate, as overtime within the meaning of Directives 93/104 and 2003/88, in order to ensure compliance with all the minimum requirements laid down by those directives. However, the Court also pointed out that the rules laid down in those Directives do not generally apply to the remuneration of workers. Accordingly, those directives do not preclude a Member State from applying legislation on the remuneration of workers and on-call duties which distinguishes between the treatment of periods during which work is actually carried out and periods during which no work is actually carried out. This is the case provided that such legislation guarantees the practical effect of the rights conferred on workers by those directives in order to ensure the effective protection of their health and safety.
Following the reasoning of the ECJ without further reservations, the District Court rejected the claim of Mr Vorel. In particular, it concluded that even though the on-call duty performance must be regarded as “working time” within the meaning of the Directives in question, Mr Vorel could have been remunerated according to the specific national rules stipulated in the Labour Code and implementing legal acts.
Even though Mr Vorel appealed against the judgement of the District Court (claiming that the District Court misinterpreted the ECJ's answer), the Regional Court in České Budějovice upheld the ruling on appeal. Realistically, it did not add any substantive arguments to the reasoning of the District Court.